[CAUT] Accujust and grunting fish bait

[PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com]

I'm not sorry to disagree in turn, David, nor should you be in a civil  
discussion. To dismiss the vibratory system connections  language as semantic 
differences is dangerous since it leads to  misunderstanding the effects of 
energy transfer which as you properly point out  was the original question. 
To accept a confusion of a common  definition of a word with the scientific 
one is logical fallacy as its  shoddiest. We can do better. By your 
definition, then, water is an  amplifier, too, since it makes wood larger. C'mon. 
 
P   
 
 
In a message dated 5/8/2009 1:17:57 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
davidlovepianos at comcast.net writes:

 
Sorry  to disagree but I think in this case it is a semantic issue and the 
original  question has been lost on this tangent.  The soundboard is clearly 
not an  “amplifier” in the scientific sense in that it doesn’t add energy, 
but it does  “amplify” (make larger) the  meager sound of a lonely 
vibrating string  that would otherwise be forgotten if the energy were not made 
more audible by  the soundboard’s greater efficiency in moving more air in 
spite of the total  energy loss in the transfer—now isn’t that some kind of 
magic wood  J.    
The  issue that has been lost is whether the vertical hitch pin might 
contribute in  some way to a plate resonance.  While I don’t know the answer, I 
don’t  think it’s an unreasonable question.   
 
David  Love 
www.davidlovepianos.com
 
 
From:  caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of  
PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:57  PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Accujust and  grunting fish bait

 
This  is not a semantic difference. The physics of this is relatively 
simple, and it  is glib and facile simply to cast it as semantic. It is a matter 
of some  responsibility that we take as "technicians" to accept known 
physics and use  it to understand what is happening in the vibratory system. Ron's 
phrase "at a  net loss" is critical to understanding what is going  on.
 

 
P
 

 
 
In a  message dated 5/7/2009 11:41:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
tannertuner at bellsouth.net writes:


-----  Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Nossaman"  <rnossaman at cox.net>
> No, it doesn't. It transduces, at a net  loss. The energy output is less 
> than the input, the difference  being absorbed by the system. If there 
were 
> such a thing as a free  amplifier, you could daisy chain the things and 
run 
> the world on a  flashlight battery. Look up James Maxwell.
> Ron N

You knew  what I meant. Since I'm not a physicist, I consider this a 
semantics  difference. What I meant by amplify is some device that 
increases 
volume  of sound.  I can do the same thing with my voice.  Same energy on  
the 
vocal chords, but properly placed in the resonance, the volume and  
projection are increased.

(which would mean a lower energy  requirement to produce the same volume?)
Jeff  





  
____________________________________
 
Remember  Mom this Mother's Day! _Find  a florist near you  now_ 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006) .



**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090508/84bff79f/attachment-0001.html>